Hi, On Tue, Aug 07, 2007, Neil Williams wrote: > the -dbg (with SONAME) [...] > provide a binary package > librarynamesoversion-dbg [...] > Josh Triplett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on 2007-04-22 19:48
Please don't impose "librarynamesoversion-dbg", a lot of source packages do not only provide a library, but also programs, and we shouldn't duplicate all packages into having a -dbg (name-dbg). This would also imply having multiple -dbg packages when there are two libraries in the same source. One example of such a package could be nautilus which has a nautilus-dbg with debugging symbols for nautilus and libnautilus-extension. I recommend naming the -dbg $source-dbg instead. We don't really need to keep -dbg for the transitional period where two SONAMEs of the same lib from the same source are on user systems and we can have very lax dependencies in the -dbg packages and on the -dbg packages. Thanks, -- Loïc Minier
